Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. vs Juan Campos

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 27, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 17CV315304 Capital One Bank Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (USA), N.A. vs Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. Juan Campos

LINE 2 23CV427373 Sikh Gurdwara- Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication San Jose OFF CALENDAR. On January 8, 2026, Defendant Surinder Sangha filed (California) vs this motion for summary adjudication. On February 13, 2026, the Surinder Sangha Honorable Jose Franco issued an Order granting a permanent injunction against Defendant Sangha after the matter proceeded to trial. Thus, this motion is rendered MOOT. LINE 3 24CV454891 Janae Scales et al Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication vs Ford Motor Scroll down to Line 3 for Tentative Ruling. Company et al LINE 4 25CV456790 William Motion for Terminating Sanctions Backstrand et al vs Scroll down to Line 4 for Tentative Ruling. Vincent Braga et al

LINE 5 25CV462475 Monica Ramos et Motion for Leave to File al vs Angela Scroll down to Line 5 for Tentative Ruling. Pollard, MD et al LINES 25CV477274 Yevgeniy Tilman et Motion to Strike (Line # 6); Motion to Strike (Line # 7); 6-8 al vs Ruby Dobry Lines # 7-8 OFF CALENDAR. On April 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a First et al Amended Complaint rendering the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP special motion to strike filed on January 21, 2026 (Line # 6) and Motion to Strike filed on December 12, 2025 (Line # 7) as MOOT.

Motion for Protective Order (Line # 8) Scroll down to Line #8 for Tentative Ruling.

- oo0oo –

9:00 A.M. Calendar Line # 1 Case Name Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. vs Juan Campos Case No. 17CV315304 Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

I. BACKGROUND This collection case stems from Defendant Juan Campos (“Campos”) owing Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. (the “Bank”) money lent in the principal amount of $3,160.22. Plaintiff Bank filed a Complaint on or around August 24, 2017. No Answer was filed. Plaintiff filed a request for default judgment that was clerk approved on January 25, 2018 in favor of the Bank against Defendant Campos for $3,455.22, compromised of $3,160.22 in damages and $295.00 in costs. (Default Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p.1).

On December 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed this present motion to set aside and vacate default and default judgment and dismiss the action with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating mail service on that same day.

The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on August 14, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

The Court has carefully reviewed the moving papers, notice of motion (totaling 2 pages); memorandum of points and authorities (totaling 2 pages); notice of nonappearance (totaling 1 page); Declaration of Laura D’Anna (totaling 2 pages); proof of service; and the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 473(B) Code of Civil Procedure section § 473(b) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief. In terms of discretionary relief section 473(b), in pertinent part, reads as follows:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. . .

The mandatory provision of section 473(b) reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.

The general underlying purpose is to promote the determination of actions on their merits. (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830). Under this statute, an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143).

B. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 473.5 Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5(a) provides: “When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action. The notice of motion shall be served and filed within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a default judgment against him or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered.”

III. ANALYSIS Here, the Plaintiff filed this present motion to set aside and vacate the default and default judgment that was entered on January 25, 2018, which is—2,895 days or seven years, 11 months, and four days—after the entry of default. Based on this timeline, relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is barred as the request for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code of Civ.

Proc., § 473(b); English v IKON Business Solutions, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at 143). Based on this timeline, and the extreme delay of nearly eight years passing since the default judgment was entered to the time the motion was filed, the Court does not need to weigh the defendant’s submission of inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect.

Further, the Court lacks jurisdiction on the grounds that the Complaint was filed on August 24, 2017, which is 3,049 days, or 8 years, 4 months, and 5 days since the motion was filed.

Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the case with prejudice upon receiving notification hat the defendant claimed fraud on the account. (Declaration of D’Anna ⁋ ⁋5 and 8). Plaintiff’s counsel, Laura D’Anna attests to reviewing and confirming the fraud claim. (Id., at ⁋6). However, Plaintiff’s counsel provides no details, specifically dates on when the defendant filed a fraud claim on his account, or when the plaintiff first learned of the fraud claim and confirmed the claim. There was no dismissal of the case without prejudice with the court retaining jurisdiction under section 664.6.

There was no timely appeal. Thus, the default judgment is the formal judgment. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the excessive delay in pursuing relief and the age of the Complaint precludes this Court from granting relief. Plaintiffs failure to seek diligent relief for nearly eight years precludes relief set forth under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(b) or 473.5.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion to set aside and vacate the default judgment. The Court will prepare the Order.

5